No Taper for QE (Al Gore, interview, salary, generation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again...you are looking at raw numbers, not something that is actually meaningful. If GDP does down, you need to adjust spending accordingly, which Obama did not do. If my household income drops by 30% and I don't cut my spending by the same amount, that is poor financial planning by myself. Why do you hold Obama to a different standard?
I am holding Obama to the same standard as every other president. Most presidents say they will reign in spending, but spending always increases so I measure the amount of increase. It is perfectly natural and expected for spending to increase during recessions, that is what safety nets are for. It is also to be expected for spending for increase, no matter who is president, because of Medicare and SS.
However, it is completely illogical to assume that governments must cut spending during recessions as that will just drive a deeper recession. Moreover, it isn't even politically feasible for any politician to cut spending and get reelected because Medicare, SS, and the military are our 3 largest expenditures. The closest any politican got to cutting medicare was Paul Ryan and even he couldn't cut benefits for seniors without losing his seat.
Here is how the GDP is calculated
C+I+G=GDP; where
C = total spending by consumers
I = total investment (spending on goods and services) by businesses
G = total spending by government (federal, state, and local)
If one of these areas decline and the other areas decline the downturn is worse than it otherwise would be.
you do realize that the global recession started with the housing fiasco that GWB went to congress and told them it was going to happen and Barny Frank and Maxine Waters said they were being racists for saying that right?
(sigh)
Bush was a consistently strong advocate for affordable housing.
The Bush Admin advocated for a super regulator of FNMA/FHLMC in the latter part of 2003 once accounting scandals became known. This had nothing to do with the housing bubble and all to do with sloppiness and fraud. Barney Frank resisted. Be aware that Republicans controlled both chambers at the time.
FHLMC/FNMA market share declined as the sub prime housing bubble grew.
What killed the GSEs were their investments of their own capital in private label junk bonds, deemed investment grade by the independent investment rating agencies. How likely would a super regulator have questioned these GSE investments of their own capital into investment grade securities?
Do you think the 2004 SEC ruling that reduced the Net Capital Requirements for the fab five, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Lehman that substantially allowed them unprecedented leverage had something to do with all that followed? Any of these names ring a bell?
I remember I could get a Burger King combo #1 for $5 before Obama took office, now its $7.... I suppose its only natural for prices to go higher over time but a 40% increase in over 4 years seems more than just "nothing" as claimed by the liberals...
Whoppers are 2/$5 in my area with or without a coupon.
Consumer prices are local. All depends on the competition in the area.
I can and do appreciate the prices in some areas where there is little competition. I was blown away by prices in the greater Ft. Myers, Fl. area, dominated by one grocer chain.
In those areas where there is substantial competition amongst grocers, it is quite possible to buy in bulk when stuff is on sale. A gallon of milk can be had for less than $2 in my neck of the woods, any day of the week. I have not spent more than $1 on eggs, yet. The cost of living is highly dependent on location.
Same here and I'm inside the city.
Milk is $2-$3
Eggs are about $2
90% lean is $3/lb
Salmon is $5
Subway sandwich - $5
Basically the same prices I was paying 2 years ago.
I remember I could get a Burger King combo #1 for $5 before Obama took office, now its $7.... I suppose its only natural for prices to go higher over time but a 40% increase in over 4 years seems more than just "nothing" as claimed by the liberals...
The rising price of food isn't real inflation. <-----sarcasm
I am looking at spending increases. Medicare is not new, SS is not new, the military is not new. Spending is at an all time high, but Obama's increase is a very small percentage and the single driver of budget increases is Medicare.
Medicare was not designed to be self funded. Shortfalls have been paid out of general revenue/deficit spending all along. Harry Truman was given the first Medicare card, despite having never paid into the system and the financial ability to pay for his own medical expenses. Medicare has been off to the races, ever since. It took the mighty earning power of the baby boom to put prior generations through Medicare.
Medicare Part D ( prescription Drug Coverage) was a Republican initiative with bipartisan support. It was approved and signed into law without any thought as to how the government was going to pay for it. And just for kicks, Congress denied Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices as in done in the rest of the world. So the U.S. government pays more of money it does not have. Big Pharma interests have no issue supporting the status quo.
Instead of increasing Payroll taxes to appropriately fund Medicare all along, the can had been kicked forward for 45 years and the masses blame Obama. Beginning in 2010, 10,000 people a day began turning 65 and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. There's huge resistance to reform , for a variety of reasons. Congress cannot seem to put their political pitchforks down long enough to take care of business.
gs/glb had zero to due with bad loans secured by the government
gs/glb had very liitle to do with the housing bubble, that started in 1995....
yes GS was a stupid thing....but it was BEFORE GS...gs had very little to do with the housing crash, gs had very little to due with "too big to fail"
gs was 1999
they(banks) became 'too big to fail' before the repealing of G-S
1987 chemical bank merged into jp morgan
1992 manufactorers hanover and trust into jp morgan
1996 chase manhattin into jp morgan
1993 Banc one into JPmorgan
1995 first chicago into jpmorgan
1995 NDBancorp into jpmorgan
1988 fleet into norstar... into bank of america
1990 bank of new england into BOA
1990 Citizens into BOA
1998 travelrs into citi
1987 first fidelity into wells fargo
1996 Meridian Bancorp into wells fargo
1997 signet into first union into wells fargo
1988 barclays into wells fargo
yes some happend after gs.. but the 'too big to fail' happend before Gs
these BANK mergers all happened BEFORE 2000 and the repealing of glass-stegal (the grammleachy)
the redoing of the mortgage rules....1995 by the HUD chief...henry cisnero's at the direction of clinton
nafta (and all the other 'free'trade agreements )has cost the USA 40 million jobs since 1994.......certainly not part of GS...
GS had nothing to due with the housing bubble...the bubble/bust was GOVERNMENT CAUSED... banks are NOT going to lend to people that cant pay UNLESS they are DIRECTED to from the GOVERNMENT..
We seem to be on a few similar pages. Contrary to popular opinion, the repeal of a portion of GS did not cause the housing bubble. The failure to appropriately regulate lenders and investment bankers and an overreliance on /lack of due dilly associated with securities deemed investment grade combined for a blip in time. Remember, FHLMC/FNMA market share declined as the bubble inflated. The dirtiest of the sub prime mortgages did not conform and did not " pass-thru" the GSEs.
The most conservative lenders were also hurt by the collapse of the housing market as home values declined. That someone made a 25% down payment on a home during the bubble did not make them immune to a decline in value. Some of these prudent borrowers became unemployed and unable to make their payments. And let's not forget the huge number of strategic foreclosures, whereby people found it more convenient to stop paying their mortgage and property taxes, even though they had the ability to do so. The consequences were not adequate to deter greed.
I am holding Obama to the same standard as every other president. Most presidents say they will reign in spending, but spending always increases so I measure the amount of increase. It is perfectly natural and expected for spending to increase during recessions, that is what safety nets are for. It is also to be expected for spending for increase, no matter who is president, because of Medicare and SS.
However, it is completely illogical to assume that governments must cut spending during recessions as that will just drive a deeper recession. Moreover, it isn't even politically feasible for any politician to cut spending and get reelected because Medicare, SS, and the military are our 3 largest expenditures. The closest any politican got to cutting medicare was Paul Ryan and even he couldn't cut benefits for seniors without losing his seat.
Here is how the GDP is calculated
C+I+G=GDP; where
C = total spending by consumers
I = total investment (spending on goods and services) by businesses
G = total spending by government (federal, state, and local)
If one of these areas decline and the other areas decline the downturn is worse than it otherwise would be.
A healthy economy depends on lowering spending during a recession. You need to drive a market to it's true bottom for a healthy rebound to occur. You aren't holding Obama to the same standard given the excess spending he has done relative to our economic performance.
Obviously that is how GDP is calculated. It also isn't a surprise that the investment portion of the GDP figures is low given the current regulation as well as promise of future tax increases put forth by Obama's administration.
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdown: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
Balloon mortgages have been around for 100 years.
The 1944 GI bill allowed veterans to buy with zero down.
Low doc/no doc loans have been around since the 70's.
Adjustable ratee loans have been around since 1982.
Home equity loans/second mortgages have been around since forever. Banks began huge ad campaigns in 2003 to encourage people to " Live Richly" and withdraw the equity from their homes to live beyond their means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
